I'll just leave this here....

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Here's a question, RWHN:

Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?

A kid who smokes pot?

Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?

This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.

I could answer your theoretical question, and it would probably be an answer you would agree with.  However, your theoretical question is based on a bullshit premise and so I won't.  Because I know exactly what you will do with my response which is what you've already done in this thread.  Just cut out the part you like, delete the rest, and claim a hollow victory.

Sorry, RWHN, don't play that game.  But, I think from this you should be able to infer what my answer to your question would be. 

In the real world, the answer is that they are both awful and both need to be addressed. 

The issue is that you are trying to address the former with laws that cause the latter.

We don't need to infer because you've actually said that adults know they're breaking the law and therefore deserve whatever immoral shit the law proscribes. Because it's The Law™.

I would be embarrassed to have to repost that too.

What specifically about ECH's premise is false?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm for reducing youth substance abuse.  Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse.  An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans.  I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.  You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe. 

The above.

Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.

Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.

Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.

Examples must be made of the disobedient.

Frankly, I think they should make them wear hair shirts for the duration of their sentences.

Y'know, I expect this bullshit out of ECH and Nigel but I'm frankly quite disappointed that you continue to conflate and misrepresent my actual stance. I've said continuously that while I don't support legalization I also support policy change to keep kids out of prison and to keep them from losing access to financial aid.

I've had your back when trolls have come in and tried to twist your words and here you are doing it to me.  I don't give a fuck that you disagree with me but misrepresenting what I actually believe is some lowdown bullshit. 

And I had your back when you first got here.  And I still do.

Just not on this subject. 

I get genuinely offended by prohibitionists.  Carrie Nation should have been dropped down a fucking well in a sack full of cats.

[AFK]

That doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to me when you are making shit up about me.  But whatever makes you feel better. 

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...

I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.

Let's be specific.  What argument do you want me to concede?  

I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here.  Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives.  Is anyone going to concede to that?  

That there is no federal standing, at least not as currently expressed. Here's the breakdown.

Federal standing as asserted under the CSA is that since drugs are often transported through international or interstate channels, the power to regulate them is granted to congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution, as amplified by the "necessary and proper" clause.

That regulate = ban is open for discussion, but let's just assume it to be true in this case.

The question then is, is the control of a substance produced in one state, unless explicitly intended for distribution across state lines, within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? To the extent that jurisdictional authority is exercised in ways that are "necessary and proper" to preventing interstate traffic in that substance, yes. Well, under the 10th any power that's not been delegated to the federal government "is reserved to the states or the people respectively". The constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to ban the production, possession, distribution or consumption of anything, therefore that power belongs to the states. The CSA's constitutionality is based on the proposition that violation of the 10th amendment is "necessary and proper" to enforce it's jurisdictional authority over interstate drug traffic. IOW, the ban on production is constitutional because it's constitutional to violate the constitution (which it is within a certain scope and I believe only under executive authority, though I could be wrong on this).

So unless it's constitutional to violate the constitution, or another logical breakdown can be presented, the CSA has no standing.

If you're interested in how it's held up under Supreme Court scrutiny, I'm pretty familiar with most of the relevant decisions (which makes me a BLAST at parties) but I have a really hard time discussing them without gratuitous caps-lock abuse and many, many a dirty swear word. Think, citation of precedent with loosely similar facts to find various ways of concluding that the 10th amendment doesn't apply...SWEAR...

---

That having been said, the constitutionality question doesn't address any opinion on legalization or criminalization, just the way it's approached on a strictly federal level.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here.  Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives.  Is anyone going to concede to that?  

Oh, and I haven't been on the dog-pile but I'm with you that the unaccounted for influence of cultural factors makes a straight examination of data from places that have legalized, very difficult to apply to the question of what the effects may be here.

Someone can call me on apples and oranges here, but looking at the effects of alcohol prohibition on use, it's clear that it did severely cut down on abuse. Most of the research I have looked at suggests that the problems that came along with it, coupled with the fact that people really just didn't care enough about keeping it illegal to deal with the loss of freedoms is really what led to the repeal, despite it actually being effective at addressing abuse. Despite the obvious apples and oranges, I have a really tough time trying to assert that top to bottom legalization of pot wouldn't lead to a fairly substantial increase on use, especially in states that currently have very restrictive laws--so I won't. But the detrimental effects of such a scenario wouldn't, in any way, touch the current shit-storm that's stirred up by prohibition.

If I find the time or ganas, I'll look into some relevant data and examine this proposition a little further, but I'm suspicious that the effect drug prohibition has had on limiting the supply is fairly negligible compared to the effects it's had on cultural perception. But then, considering that it's highly unlikely that Superbowl Bud-Bowl commercials aren't likely to be replaced by Superbowl 'Bud'-Bowl commercials, that effect wouldn't be nearly as pronounced as it could be.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...

I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.

Let's be specific.  What argument do you want me to concede?  

I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here.  Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives.  Is anyone going to concede to that?  

And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment.  I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue.  I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.  

An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?

Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase?  These surveys don't track them all of their lives.  They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school.  I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right?  These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids.  And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation.  Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.   

Well the kids that represent the increase will become homeless pot whores sucking dick and putting out for one hit of a bong. That's why I'm for legalization, I want more little sluts on the street so I can get my rocks off for a dime bag.

Further, you speak of a "culture of permissiveness". In a culture where normal use is permitted and abuse is frowned on, wouldn't the cultural norm foster moderation? Much as Demolition Squid pointed out, kids who are exposed to moderate alcohol consumption at home are less likely to binge drink when they're out of the house. I don't think there is anything wrong with a cultural norm of permissiveness in moderation, whereas I see a lot of problems with a cultural norm of making marijuana a forbidden fruit. IMO it actually fosters heavy/binge use among kids who are looking to rebel.

Really?  Do you watch movies?  do you listen to current music?  Do you watch TV?  To suggest their isn't a "culture of permissiveness" NOW, with it being illegal, is crazy.  There is clearly a culture of permissiveness in this country when it comes to marijuana.  I will admit it is kind of shocking to me, in a way, that we haven't legalized it by now.  Because I think by and large, Americans are largely uneducated as to the true costs of youth marijuana use.  Or maybe they just don't care.  I'm not sure which one it is. 

So we have a culture of permissiveness now, where the view of harm is minimal... but we don't want to legalize it because it might engender a culture of permissiveness and minimize the view of harm. That makes a lot of sense to me.

[Phox]

You keep saying things about "culture" but I'm not even sure what you mean by the word. Because if you're going to make an argument that culture is a factor you have to be specific about what you mean.

Let me ask you this question.  Do you think, if every country in the world all of a sudden enacted the exact same policies regarding marijuana, or even all illicit drugs.  If every country made them legal tomorrow.  Do you think that the rates of youth use of substances would be identical in every country, within a confidence interval? 

Okay. What the fuck, dude? I've been mostly staying out of this, because I can give a fuck harder in my sleep. But I've been reading it. And I have to say, when you are being evasive when you are asked to DEFINE A FUCKING TERM YOU HAVE USED MORE THAN ONCE, you are not at all debating in good faith. Of course the rates are going to be different, due to a variety of factors that may or may not be "cultural". So, that, and this:

Here's a question, RWHN:

Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?

A kid who smokes pot?

Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?

This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.

I could answer your theoretical question, and it would probably be an answer you would agree with.  However, your theoretical question is based on a bullshit premise and so I won't.  Because I know exactly what you will do with my response which is what you've already done in this thread.  Just cut out the part you like, delete the rest, and claim a hollow victory.

Sorry, RWHN, don't play that game.  But, I think from this you should be able to infer what my answer to your question would be. 

In the real world, the answer is that they are both awful and both need to be addressed. 

go to show that I've been wasting my time looking at your sources and taking what you say in good faith. So, ya know, your opinion ain't worth two shits to me. I mean, I was willing to give you a shot, even after you blew me off when I was legitimately trying to help you out. As Roger often says, I gotta be me, and right now that means I gotta tell you to fuck off. Seriously, I'm starting to think you should have stayed flounced. Please kindly remove yourself from my planet with all due speed. Thanks in advance. 

[Cain]

Not good enough, guys.

I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight.  We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.

[Phox]

Not good enough, guys.

I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight.  We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.

Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.

[Scribbly]

Not good enough, guys.

I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight.  We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.

Maybe we should try and interject a second strand of idiot jabbering...

Not only do I think marijuana should be legalized, I think it should be used as the new standard for currencies. The Weed Standard would enable us to grow our way to economic prosperity, and would back our money with something of great practical use but without the supply problems of gold!

Kids will be fine because they don't get that much pocket money anyway, and parents can ration their access to weed by adjusting their income so that they can't get hold of enough to abuse it.

Plus, if your reserves degrade over time, you like, have to spend the money rather than hoarding it, which totally means that the economy will get an immediate kickstart and everything will be great.

[AFK]

Not good enough, guys.

I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight.  We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.

Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.

Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.  That whole atropine melee?  That began with TGRR posting a link and a quote he thought showed codeine being combined with atropine when it was actually an anti-diahhreal drug called Lomotil, which others in this thread, including ECH, conceded was an acceptable medical use of atropine.  Has TGRR copped to that?  Nope.  That whole bullshit discussion was based on a bullshit link, but neither he nor any of you other chikcen-shits would cop to it because, why?  Don't talke to me about intellectual integrity.

And then some assclowns decide that I'm a phony and that I don't really do the job I've said I do for the past 5 years.  But then when someone they like says, "no, he's real", then they change their mind.  Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.

And then TGRR making shit up about what I actually believe.  That I SUPPORT kids going to jail for possession, that I support families being busted up because of possession convictions, that I support kids not being able to get financial aid, when I have repeatedly said I DON'T support any of that shit and that the shit should be changed.   Yet, people continue to post that I do support all of that.  Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity. 

Look, I'm not going to submit to stupid games.  The question ECH posed was a game.  Do I think, on paper that a kid experimenting with pot is better off than a kid who just lost his family because of drug confictions.  Well, Jesus, of fucking course.  Who the fuck would say otherwise?  But the real world doesn't work that way.  It isn't an either/or.  Both of those can be adressed and I believe they can be addressed without legalizing marijuana.  You don't agree?  Fine, I don't give a fuck and I really don't expect anyone to agree with that position.  But that has shit all to do with my intellectual integrity.

Indeed, if I were to bend my actual beliefs in this area in a way to satisfy you spags, what the fuck does that say about my intellectual integrity?  That I stray from the constructs of how I think around this subject just so you all can agree.  Don't fucking talk to me about intellectual integrity. 

[Triple Zero]

So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...

I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.

Let's be specific.  What argument do you want me to concede?  

I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here.  Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives.  Is anyone going to concede to that?  

And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment.  I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue.  I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.  

An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?

Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase?  These surveys don't track them all of their lives.  They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school.  I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right?  These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids.  And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation.  Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.   

Well the kids that represent the increase will become homeless pot whores sucking dick and putting out for one hit of a bong. That's why I'm for legalization, I want more little sluts on the street so I can get my rocks off for a dime bag.

Further, you speak of a "culture of permissiveness". In a culture where normal use is permitted and abuse is frowned on, wouldn't the cultural norm foster moderation? Much as Demolition Squid pointed out, kids who are exposed to moderate alcohol consumption at home are less likely to binge drink when they're out of the house. I don't think there is anything wrong with a cultural norm of permissiveness in moderation, whereas I see a lot of problems with a cultural norm of making marijuana a forbidden fruit. IMO it actually fosters heavy/binge use among kids who are looking to rebel.

Really?  Do you watch movies?  do you listen to current music?  Do you watch TV?  To suggest their isn't a "culture of permissiveness" NOW, with it being illegal, is crazy.  There is clearly a culture of permissiveness in this country when it comes to marijuana.  I will admit it is kind of shocking to me, in a way, that we haven't legalized it by now.  Because I think by and large, Americans are largely uneducated as to the true costs of youth marijuana use.  Or maybe they just don't care.  I'm not sure which one it is. 

So we have a culture of permissiveness now, where the view of harm is minimal... but we don't want to legalize it because it might engender a culture of permissiveness and minimize the view of harm. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Over here in the Netherlands, one of those kids grew up to become ... DE MOSSELMAN

Which we counted as a win.

All the other kids, we revoked their citizenship and dumped them in the ocean, like surplus kittens. And that's how we got the decrease in pot usage after legalisation.

True story. Though of course the potheads will tell you it's a cover up propaganda scare fabricated by the powerful seafood-lobby.

It just depends on what side you want to believe.

[Triple Zero]

Not only do I think marijuana should be legalized, I think it should be used as the new standard for currencies. The Weed Standard would enable us to grow our way to economic prosperity, and would back our money with something of great practical use but without the supply problems of gold!

Kids will be fine because they don't get that much pocket money anyway, and parents can ration their access to weed by adjusting their income so that they can't get hold of enough to abuse it.

Plus, if your reserves degrade over time, you like, have to spend the money rather than hoarding it, which totally means that the economy will get an immediate kickstart and everything will be great.

Wall Street kids will try to block it though, because you can't roll up cannabis buds to snort coke with.

It'll never pass unless we genetically modify pot to grow hollow stems.

[Scribbly]

Not good enough, guys.

I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight.  We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.

Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.

Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.  That whole atropine melee?  That began with TGRR posting a link and a quote he thought showed codeine being combined with atropine when it was actually an anti-diahhreal drug called Lomotil, which others in this thread, including ECH, conceded was an acceptable medical use of atropine.  Has TGRR copped to that?  Nope.  That whole bullshit discussion was based on a bullshit link, but neither he nor any of you other chikcen-shits would cop to it because, why?  Don't talke to me about intellectual integrity.

And then some assclowns decide that I'm a phony and that I don't really do the job I've said I do for the past 5 years.  But then when someone they like says, "no, he's real", then they change their mind.  Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.

And then TGRR making shit up about what I actually believe.  That I SUPPORT kids going to jail for possession, that I support families being busted up because of possession convictions, that I support kids not being able to get financial aid, when I have repeatedly said I DON'T support any of that shit and that the shit should be changed.   Yet, people continue to post that I do support all of that.  Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity. 

Look, I'm not going to submit to stupid games.  The question ECH posed was a game.  Do I think, on paper that a kid experimenting with pot is better off than a kid who just lost his family because of drug confictions.  Well, Jesus, of fucking course.  Who the fuck would say otherwise?  But the real world doesn't work that way.  It isn't an either/or.  Both of those can be adressed and I believe they can be addressed without legalizing marijuana.  You don't agree?  Fine, I don't give a fuck and I really don't expect anyone to agree with that position.  But that has shit all to do with my intellectual integrity.

Indeed, if I were to bend my actual beliefs in this area in a way to satisfy you spags, what the fuck does that say about my intellectual integrity?  That I stray from the constructs of how I think around this subject just so you all can agree.  Don't fucking talk to me about intellectual integrity. 

That's exactly what you've been doing all week. Well, submitting to them, and playing them.

There's a difference between intellectual integrity and dogmatism, by the way. If you haven't noticed, what pretty much every other person on the site has been saying is that you've been crossed that line. Potentially because you're making yourself look like an ass playing stupid games.

Wall Street kids will try to block it though, because you can't roll up cannabis buds to snort coke with.

It'll never pass unless we genetically modify pot to grow hollow stems.

Those elitist bastards.

But I suppose that is a compromise we might have to live with. The 1% who use cocaine might be able to force some measures to make it more palatable to them, but mark my words, the 99% won't just let this go without a fight! Real reform for real people!

[AFK]

There's a difference between intellectual integrity and dogmatism, by the way. If you haven't noticed, what pretty much every other person on the site has been saying is that you've been crossed that line. Potentially because you're making yourself look like an ass playing stupid games.

Because I'm making counter arguments? 

How are my counter arguments dogmatic while the counter arguments from the pro-marijuana side NOT dogmatic? 

I've provided evidence to support my argument concerning the impact that community norms and perception of harm have on marijuana use.  That is peer-reviewed science.  If that makes me dogmatic then fuck me.

I've also raised questions about some of the research submitted concerning what has been happening in Europe.  I have fully acknowledged that usage rates are lower in Europe, but they were lower in a lot of places BEFORE any legalization or decriminalization.  That is an important point.  If you guys don't like that, then fuck me, because that is based in fundamental evaluation.  When doing any kind of assessment you do have ton consider confounding variables.  And in the cases where we have only been presented abstracts and not full research articles, it is impossible to know whether or not that variable has been controlled for.  That isn't dogmatism that is science.  Blindly accepting the results of research without considering the protocol and confounding variables is dogmatism.

You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but from where I'm sitting, this is pretty clear group dynamics.  THere are a couple of individuals here using their heads while questioning me but many others have been caught up in a game and aren't really thinking things through.